A theoretical framework on how to approach globalization
and social practice
Arnt Flysand Summary Globalization sometimes strengthens existing patterns of social interaction and sometimes changes these patterns. In both cases the empirical outcomes can be of homogeneous as well as of heterogeneous character. This means that the process of globalization is double edged and impossible to forecast. At best it can be exposed through theory informed empirical studies of social practice. This paper is a draft of a theoretical and methodological framework to achieve this. The notion of social fields together with the abstractions of culture, interaction and agents, is suggested as theoretical and analytical concepts enabling us to grasp some of the many relationships between globalization and social practice. Introduction The process of globalization can be characterized both as homogeneous and heterogeneous. It is double-edged. On the one hand the world tends to be more and more homogenized through changes of technology, involving nations, communities and people in a globalized system of knowledge and information exchange and markets for goods and finance (Knox and Agnew 1998). In this process the world is shrinking in physical terms with respect to flows of knowledge, goods and finance through the world-wide operation of communication systems and of transnational corporations. It makes it possible to enjoy a Coca-Cola, operate Internet on your computer and follow your favorite soap in almost every corner of the world. In general, this spatial compression implies a limitation of physical barriers to the diffusion of commodities, technology and information, and the homogenization of physical space as a potential consequence. On the other hand, the process of globalization can also be characterized as heterogeneous referring to the plurality of socio-cultural embedded practices and interpretations people express and apply in an increasingly globalized everyday life (Giddens 1990, Giddens 1991). Socio-culturally based action in communities or social fields of different spatial scale influence and mediate in the course of globalization. Globalization seems to mean that our actions, rooted in horizons of understanding and knowledge, reconstructed over time in continuously changing local micro-macro contexts (Simonsen 1994, Werlen 1993), are changed, but not necessarily homogenized. In other words spatial compression and homogenization of physical space do not automatically imply homogenization of social space. On the contrary, the compression of physical space seems to sustain and even stimulate heterogeneity in social space. This means that there is no fixed relationship between globalization and practice. It differs in time and space. It also means that the double-edged nature of globalization can only be analyzed by discovering people's cultural and social space in their on-going social, political and economic practice (Beck 1992). This paper is a draft of a theoretical and methodological framework for this purpose. The framework is constructed on the theoretical notion thateconomic, political and socio-cultural change in connection with globalization does not mean replacement of old practices with new ones, but integration of old and new meanings in continuously changing spatial practices. Methodologically, I pay special importance to relational space. A methodological approach that connects social practice to systems of meanings and social fields is presented. It is argued that a deeper understanding of the double-edged nature of the process of globalization presupposes a focus on the dialectic between processes of modernization and social practice that can be exposed empirically in social fields of an agent or in social fields of an interrelated group of agents.
Globalization and modernization
The term globalization is hard to define. Social scientists will normally hold that the achievement of an understanding of globalization is dependent on an examination of the relationship between the compression of physical space and economic, political and social processes of modernization in society. The process of globalization can then be specified by referring to different forms of change or modernization linked to economic, political and socio-cultural events and processes that influence and are influenced by activities in communities. First, communities take part in economic modernization. Economic modernization deals with the establishment of more efficient technology of in the production of resources. Traditionally this process has been connected to industrialization and the subsequent building up of Fordism and large scale production as the dominant modes of organization under Western capitalism. In recent times, increased international competition and liberalization in world trade have opened for more customer and niche adapted production. In this process small and medium sized enterprises make use of flexibility and local creativity, alone, or through collaboration with other firms. Regional and institutional flexibility of production (Storper and Walker 1989, Amin and Thrift 1994) seems attainable through relations at different geographical levels, in small and peripheral as well as in central communities. Flexibility and competitiveness have been strengthened in industrial clusters consisting of producers and sales companies, financial and research institutions, backed up by official authorities and others (Porter 1990). The strengths of these clusters are then able to influence the economic practice in even the most peripheral community through for example remote ownership, international division of labor and labor migration Secondly, communities take part in political modernization. Political modernization refers to the many-sided tendency towards more political steering of more activities in modern society, while at the same time decisions in political and economic relations are rearranged to regional and international geographical levels and in recent years especially to the regulations executed by market transactions (Lash and Urry 1987, Jessop 1990, Sayer 1995). Thus, there is a close dialectic relationship between political and economic modernization, and between political and economic practice. Finally, communities take part in cultural modernization. Production of culture and identity to a large degree have changed from being a concern of communities to an individual affair characterized by reflexive individuals in search of economic and political power and cultural identity (Beck 1992, Giddens 1991, Jackson 1989). In some communities cultural modernization implies that the majority of the youth prefer to leave. Thus, in many cases it is a process that implies cultural change in other communities, dependent on the cultural difference between place of origin and destination of the migrants. But also if youths and people decide to stay in their community of origin, the integration of communities and people into a world wide system of knowledge, information exchange and markets for goods and finance, can imply changes in cultural norms and values, thus influencing on-going economic, political and social practice. This implies that there seems to be a dialectical relationship not only between political and economic modernization and practice, but also between all the three above mentioned modernization processes and forms of practice.